CAT 2019 Slot 1 — VARC Question 32
The passage given below is followed by four alternate summaries. Choose the option that best captures the essence of the passage.
Physics is a pure science that seeks to understand the behavior of matter without regard to whether it will afford any practical benefit. Engineering is the correlative applied science in which physical theories are put to some specific use, such as building a bridge or a nuclear reactor. Engineers obviously rely heavily on the discoveries of physicists, but an engineer's knowledge of the world is not the same as the physicist's knowledge. In fact, an engineer's know-how will often depend on physical theories that, from the point of view of pure physics, are false. There are some reasons for this. First, theories that are false in the purest and strictest sense are still sometimes very good approximations to the true ones, and often have the added virtue of being much easier to work with. Second, sometimes the true theories apply only under highly idealized conditions which can only be created under controlled experimental situations. The engineer finds that in the real world, theories rejected by physicists yield more accurate predictions than the ones that they accept
Answer & solution
- A
The relationship between pure and applied science is strictly linear, with the pure science directing applied science, and never the other way round.
Though engineering draws heavily from pure science, it contributes to knowledge, by incorporating the constraints and conditions in the real world.
- C
The unique task of the engineer is to identify, understand, and interpret the design constraints to produce a successful result.
- D
Engineering and physics fundamentally differ on matters like building a bridge or a nuclear reactor.
Easy
For a best-summary question, pin down the central idea, then reject options that distort it, narrow it to one side, or add claims the passage never makes. The passage's core point: engineering draws on pure physics yet has its own knowledge, because real-world conditions make "false" theories more useful and accurate than the "true" ones physicists accept.
Distorts the relationship. Claims the link is "strictly linear," pure science always directing applied science and "never the other way round." The passage says the opposite — engineering relies on theories physics rejects, so the influence is not one-directional. Reject.
Captures the essence. "Though engineering draws heavily from pure science, it contributes to knowledge, by incorporating the constraints and conditions in the real world." This balances both sides (dependence on physics + engineering's distinct, real-world-grounded knowledge), matching the passage exactly. Correct.
One-sided and off-point. It talks only about the engineer's task of interpreting design constraints, ignoring the central physics-vs-engineering knowledge contrast that the passage is built around. Too narrow. Reject.
Too specific / misreads. It pins the difference onto particular projects ("building a bridge or a nuclear reactor"), which were merely examples. The real difference is about kinds of knowledge and the accuracy of theories, not about specific structures. Reject.
Best summary: "Though engineering draws heavily from pure science, it contributes to knowledge, by incorporating the constraints and conditions in the real world."